Conclusion and Recommendations
Report conclusions
The New Zealand media performs well when it comes to covering disability issues in some areas. The first of these is the breadth of disability issues traversed. From the analysis of 2012 media items, it appeared that the outlets surveyed carried coverage about issues surrounding accessibility, reasonable accommodation, the abuse and neglect of disabled people, income support and the social and political participation of disabled people. The media, through covering these stories, enabled New Zealanders to gain a better understanding of some of the key issues that faced their fellow disabled citizens in 2012. Second, where print and television/radio media covered disability in 2012, they afforded prominence to disability issues and disabled people. Effectively, this meant that there were only a minority of stories where disability was only referred to in passing or where the main focus was on non-disability issues.
A fundamental concept for all media worldwide, is that of ‘freedom of the press’. While the need for the New Zealand media to exercise freedom and balance is acknowledged and recognised, the media must ensure that the voices of disabled people themselves are carried more in mainstream stories and those which directly concern us and our issues. As the figures relating to the number of disabled people’s voices carried by New Zealand’s main media outlets illustrate, this country still has some way to travel before disabled people can say that our authentic voices are being heard.
This can not currently be said due to a number of factors. There is a distinct lack of disability awareness, not to mention responsiveness, within the media. This lack of awareness contributes to journalists, more often than not, seeking out the voices of organisations run for and not by, disabled people and also the voices of family/whanau members rather than of disabled people themselves. Admittedly, it may not always be possible to carry the voices of disabled people in every story. This can be due to a number of factors, not the least of which are the journalist’s own often incorrect assumptions about disabled people. Some articles analysed in chapter one were actual commentaries largely written or broadcast by non-disabled commentators or journalists who simply can not put themselves in our shoes when it comes to discussing our issues. While in a free and democratic society, such as Aotearoa New Zealand, commentators have a right to espouse their views, they should at least recognise that when they come to write or broadcast on disability issues, they should do so with the knowledge that impairment could either affect them or a family member or friend at any time. This is another reason why robust disability responsiveness training of both existing and future media professionals should be accorded a high priority by media training providers, as many journalists, for example, become commentators or are increasingly doing so as part of their work.
If disability awareness and responsiveness were to become incorporated into media training frameworks, then both the existing and upcoming generation of media professionals would cover more disability-related stories, at even greater length where warranted. They would be less likely to employ derogatory, negative language, which stereotypes and labels disabled people. Just as New Zealand media outlets no longer engage in the use of sexist terminology in stories about women and girls, in the 21st Century, the vast majority of the disability community would similarly welcome the retirement by the media of terms such as ‘crippled’, ‘handicapped’, ‘mad’ and ‘senile’ in stories about disability. Language does have a bearing on how societal groups are perceived and treated. Therefore, the media need to become more familiar with the term ‘disablist’ as much as they have become with the terms racist, sexist and homophobic.
If New Zealand’s media were to become more disability aware, they would seek to interview more people with a greater range of impairments than just mobility impairments. Furthermore, in this case, journalists/reporters would (particularly within print media) hopefully become more accurate and less stereotypically negative in their coverage of mental health issues.
Another disappointing factor is the absence of coverage on issues pertaining to Maori, Pasefika and other ethnic group disabled people, at least within the sample stories surveyed. While some mainstream media coverage (such as, for example, that on the Sam Kahui hunger strike) discussed the issues impacting upon Maori disabled people, there was a general absence of this in other media surveyed. As briefly noted in chapter one, an analysis was made by one analyst of 2012 articles published in Mana magazine, a monthly Maori news and current affairs publication. Not one article was found about disability within any of the 12 issues of Mana. Again, the lack of resources and time for this project meant that only Mana and the Maori news programme on Radio New Zealand National could be analysed for Paralympic-related content. Otherwise, if more Maori, Pacific and ethnic-based media had been able to be surveyed, it is hoped there would have been articles and stories on disability that could have been analysed. A well resourced and extensive project on disability and the media would be able to focus, among other things, on Maori, Pacific and ethnic media views of disability.
Overall, this media analysis has illustrated that, while there have been some improvements in attitudes towards disability in the New Zealand media, there is still a significant road to travel before it can be said that the media portrays disabled people in an accurate, dignified and positive way. The media has a significant role to play in helping transition public discourse from one which sees disability as a negative to be feared to a more positive one, where impairment is viewed as simply a fact of life. To this end, the media could play an active role in helping eliminate the barriers that create the disabling world in which New Zealanders with impairments live. How the media should do so is the challenge that this report presents, both to it and the wider society it serves.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
- Media organisations provide disability responsiveness and rights awareness training to all staff, with suitably qualified disabled people delivering the training – the need for this training to be endorsed by the New Zealand Journalists Training Organisation.
- Media organisations develop clear policies relating to reporting of disability issues and disabled people, with an emphasis on eliminating negative/belittling language and that Disabled People's Organisations be consulted in policy development.
- Media complaints mechanisms, both government and non-government, be reviewed to ensure that these are accessible and responsive to disabled people, and that disabled people take a lead role in this process.
- Media organisations, as part of their equal employment opportunity policies, make greater efforts to appoint disabled people to work within all levels of their organisations, especially in reporting and editing roles. This could be achieved in part by the funding of scholarships for disabled people who aspire to work within the media.
- Media organisations, particularly television and radio, encourage the appointment of disabled people to frontline presenting roles.
- Disabled people be portrayed more inclusively in media stories and overt references to any impairment should not be made unless deemed necessary by editorial staff.
- Media organisations develop consultative mechanisms with disabled people, at both national and local levels, to gain feedback on items pertaining to coverage of disability issues and that media outlets ensure, wherever possible, Disabled People's Organisations and disabled individuals are actively sought out for comment on disability-related stories. Effective monitoring and feedback mechanisms could include the establishment and appointment by media outlets of directly employed Disability Advisors and/or establishing advisory groups – TVNZ has a Maori Advisor for example who advises on Maori issues within that organisation.
- The Minister for Culture and Heritage and the Minister of Broadcasting appoint suitably qualified disabled people to the boards of key statutory organisations concerned with broadcasting policy and media regulation; which includes the Broadcasting Standards Authority, New Zealand on Air, and the New Zealand Press Council.
- New Zealand on Air continue and extend, wherever possible, funding for disability programming across all broadcasting platforms that are produced and presented by disabled people themselves.
- All statutory bodies involved in the regulation and funding of broadcasting ensure the appointment of suitably qualified disabled people within their organisations.
- Disability service providers take care to avoid the use of charitable, heroic/superhuman and medical-model based publicity, especially in the course of engaging in fundraising and that disabled people lead and are centrally involved in the development of any such campaigns.
- Disabled People's Organisations and media-focused organisations, for example, broadcasters, publishing companies and the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand engage in regular dialogue on disability issues in the media through advisory panels or an ongoing working group.
- Government and the media industry jointly fund a more extensive, longitudinal-based study into media attitudes about disabled people, with the aim of measuring any changes to reporting and coverage across media outlets over time. This study to be led by and involve disabled people, including those disabled people who work in the media.